The same old status quo will destroy the USCF

Here is my follow up to respond to Bill Goichberg:

First of all, please do not add any name to the list of recipients above which I purposely deleted. There is a reason for this.

Secondly, I brought up (back in August 2007) a number of suggestions to improve and modernize the USCF. I clearly stated to you and to the USCF members that the status quo does not work and the USCF will fail miserably if we continue down the same path. The members clearly voted for serious changes. I also said that even though we were doing OK financially at that time, we must take steps to improve the federation. We cannot simply "react" every time we face problems.

We had room to implement many important improvements at that time but this was not the direction of the board majority. You on your own made a number of decisions shortly after that without consulting other board members. This clearly contributed to the current problems. It is not too late to fix things but being defensive about your records will not help alleviate these serious problems.

I am not interested in arguing with you. The USCF is in serious trouble and it should no longer be the Bill Goichberg show. You need to listen and take the advice from others in areas you have no expertise in. If you continue the attitude that Bill Goichberg does not lose any debate / argument, the USCF is doomed.

As I stated in my previous email, what you proposed only covers a limited area. Here are the areas which must be addressed / improved upon:

1. The structure of the dues MUST be simplified. Even with the current structure, people are complaining that it is too confusing. If the finance committee, the scholastic council, and others agree with raising / lowering dues or changing other areas, I have no problem with it. The point is we should not change the dues structure like a yo yo.

We also cannot do this and ignore other serious problems. In this case, we will always be in the same position.

2. We need to cut a lot more expenses. Both Paul and I brought this up in the last board meeting in private sessions. We are more than happy to bring it up again in the next meeting in closed sessions.

3. Yes, the USCF will face quite a bit of additional legal expenses and perhaps even serious legal liabilities. I am sorry to strongly disagree with your assessment in this issue. You are more than welcome to bring this up in a closed session in the next board meeting.

4. You still have not addressed the issues of Marketing / PR to make the USCF more attractive to gain additional revenues via sponsorships, advertisements, and donations, etc. You reject ideas from Paul and I and you have no plan in place. The same ideas which we proposed to you brought to SPICE / SPF more than $500,000 in donations, advertisements, and sponsorships in 2008 alone. I expect this amount to surpass $1,000,000 for 2008.

5. You have not addressed the issue of creating a quality control system. I created a quality control system for SPICE / SPF to make sure there is no unnecessary or wasteful spending. Quality control should not involve politics or personal agenda. It should be there to protect the USCF and to ensure that things are being run efficiently. The idea for this is to make sure that we make as little mistakes as possible. In addition, it is to ensure that when mistakes are made, they are fixed immediately before it is too late.

Board members and the ED should not be involved in this process. This would clearly be unproductive. My suggestion is to have a committee of 3 people, people with strong business / financial understandings and successful business backgrounds (Chuck Unruh, Jim Eade, Joel Channing, Frank Camaratta, Steve Doyle, Grant Perks, etc. These are just names which came off the top of my head as successful business people or people who understands financial bottom lines.) to handle this task.

6. You have not addressed the issue of funding the 2008 Olympiad teams, 2009 US and US Women's Championships, and other USCF events. I also brought this issue up in a closed session but you were determined to back another plan.

As for the LMA, IMO, it should be used to take care of the commitments to Life Members and NOT to bail out USCF mismanagement.

Susan Polgar